Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The poorest of them certainly are. The rest aren't.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cuba, pre-Revolution as not good, but not as bad as often portrayed.
Batista, and the corruption, needed to go. I question whether Castro was the answer, though. Had the island been in the hands of someone else, it could likely be in a better position now. Castro's edict that none of the commandante's take power was one he should have kept.

---

quote:

---

And this is the world context in which we have to evaluate Castro. In the end, which nation is better off today, Cuba or the Dominican Republic? Or any of its similar neighbors around the Caribbean basin. While many Americans demonize Castro as a monster, have the Cuban people been worse off than the U.S. client state in the Dominican Republic under the homicidal maniac Rafael Trujillo or his hack assistant Joaquin Balaguer, who came to power with the assistance of Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 invasion to eliminate the movement behind democratically elected but now overthrown Juan Bosch? I think that’s pretty unlikely. Cuba and the DR have similar histories, economies, racial makeup, and interactions with American imperialism. We can’t actually know the answer to this, but if you look at Mexico, at Nicaragua, at Honduras, at Guatemala, at Haiti, at Jamaica, and at the Dominican Republic, it’s really hard to see how their histories since 1958 have somehow been more free and prosperous than that of Castro’s Cuba. And while this is not the final statistic on these issues, of all the nations listed above, the UN Human Development Index ranks Communist Cuba 1st, and 5th in all of Latin America.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The poorest of them certainly are. The rest aren't.

---

The poorest of them probably accounted for a substantial majority of the population before the revolution. I'm not sure how much better off they are now, but I'll bet they are better off than they would have been had Batista and the United Fruit Company still been in charge.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, one of the better ones.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Fidel Castro outlived American democracy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the question isn't whether the island would have been better off in the hands of a generic "someone else", but rather with the specific type of client-state dictators installed to serve American interests, as we see in both Castro's predecessors and his neighbors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
It is, I suppose, preferable to prefer a dictatorship that privileges health care over, say, making the trains run on time or facilitating the interests of US multinationals. But it is still an apologetic for a dictatorship, w

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people..

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Dictatorship or plutocracy. Which do you love least? Probably the one which harms you more. Thus give me Cuba before Guatemala or Nicaragua, the later before Reagan's illegal guns and overthrow.

(Yes Kaplan, we agree)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Dictatorship or plutocracy. Which do you love least? Probably the one which harms you more. Thus give me Cuba before Guatemala or Nicaragua, the later before Reagan's illegal guns and overthrow.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, one of the better ones.

---

I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, a lesser evil than some (such as Batista).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Not to mention that American conservatives only squawk about the evils of dictatorship when it comes to Castro's Cuba.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

This cuts both ways. A number of people on the left who bang on about how evil Pinochet was (which I don't doubt) are now mourning the death of Castro. I struggle to see the difference between the two, besides the fact one wore a smarter uniform. [/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, one of the better ones.

---

I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, a lesser evil than some (such as Batista).

---

Although a dictator, he restored his country's sovereignty and made great improvements in public health and infrastructure. But anyway, enough about Hitler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Not to mention that American conservatives only squawk about the evils of dictatorship when it comes to Castro's Cuba.

---

This cuts both ways. A number of people on the left who bang on about how evil Pinochet was (which I don't doubt) are now mourning the death of Castro. I struggle to see the difference between the two, besides the fact one wore a smarter uniform.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, so much of the information we have about Cuba comes from western-controlled sources

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pinochet killed a lot more people

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pinochet killed a lot more people

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pinochet killed a lot more people

---

Not true.

Estimates vary as to the numbers who died under Castro, but even when the thousands of those who drowned fleeing Cuba on makeshift flotation are left out, he still killed more than the more or less agreed upon 3,000 who died under Pinochet.

The only difference between them was that Pinochet was a murderous Latin American military dictator, and Castro was a murderous Latin American military dictator.

As dictators go, neither plumbed the depths of a Mao, Hitler or Stalin, but that is not saying a great deal.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model. Castro was not this, but maybe closer than many. Definitely closer than Saudi or Korea. ...

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model. Castro was not this, but maybe closer than many. Definitely closer than Saudi or Korea. ...

---

One often hears people say this. Can you name any actual example?

I can't and I think that speaks for itself.

I lived for four years in one that is sometimes commended as one - but only by people who had never been there. It cured me of that particular delusion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.

---

Castro's disregard for liberal human rights need to be understood in the context of Communist/Left political ideology. In terms of this ideology, any support of liberal human rights that did not come with an a priori ideological commitment to the interests of the working class would inevitably lead to the takeover of the political system by wealthy interests. Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people.

America never understood this because ideologically, their advancement of democracy is tied to their praise of capitalism, i.e. to a left wing view, American democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy.

Principled critique of Castro on human rights, needs to not be associated with praise of the capitalist system, which IMHO, is my suspicion with some of the right wing critics of Castro.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.

---

Castro's disregard for liberal human rights need to be understood in the context of Communist/Left political ideology. In terms of this ideology, any support of liberal human rights that did not come with an a priori ideological commitment to the interests of the working class would inevitably lead to the takeover of the political system by wealthy interests. Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people.

America never understood this because ideologically, their advancement of democracy is tied to their praise of capitalism, i.e. to a left wing view, American democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy.

Principled critique of Castro on human rights, needs to not be associated with praise of the capitalist system, which IMHO, is my suspicion with some of the right wing critics of Castro.

---

It's axiomatic that Western democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy, not left wing. Was there more social justice in Cuba than in the US? Is there? Or are we saying the egalitarian level of Cuba is so low that the lack of social justice in Western democracies is still more beneficial to the masses? If so, that's nothing to do with the failure of Cuban socialism but Cuba being punished for overreacting to the existential threat of the CIA's Bay of Pigs counter-revolutionary invasion by bringing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. With Castro demanding a first strike from Khrushchev.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
No, because I don't think we have ever had one. It is a model, not something that has ever been actually put into practice. ....

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.

---

Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.

---

Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.

---

Though the level of power can overlap, monarchs and dictators are not technically the same thing and are generally not compared.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Fidel Castro outlived American democracy.

---

If you mean that Trump has said that he is going to abolish elections and remain in power indefinitely, then I hadn't caught up with that.

If you mean that Trump won office without a majority of the popular vote then, as I pointed out in another thread, Salvador Allende, revered as one of democracy's martyrs, was not legitimately elected president of Chile, either.

If you are merely venting out of a sense of frustration, then FWIW I agree with you that Trump is an arsehole.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It's just been announced on our news that the Cuban state has decided there will be a FOUR DAY funeral procession. It sounds as though his corpse will be taken for a tour of the whole country concentrating especially on locations which have particular significance in the mythology of the Great Leader.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Democracy in the western hemisphere, Latin America. Was it encouraged more by Cuba's support of governments or America's overthrow of governments. And which did more invasions and assassinations and training how to torture?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
during the Cuban missile crisis he urged Khrushchev to launch a first strike against the US. If Khrushchev had followed his advice we would not be discussing this on the internet.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Democracy in the western hemisphere, Latin America. Was it encouraged more by Cuba's support of governments or America's overthrow of governments. And which did more invasions and assassinations and training how to torture?

---

When a defence is predicated on lack of opportunity, it is not a justification of character.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
during the Cuban missile crisis he urged Khrushchev to launch a first strike against the US. If Khrushchev had followed his advice we would not be discussing this on the internet.

---

According to interviews with former Soviet officials after 1991 (specifically, staff officer General Danilevich, from a transcript held by George Washington University), Castro was still pressing for a first strike against the US during the early 1980s.

They had to explain to him the ecological consequences for Cuba, which suggests that his intelligence was on a par with his ethics.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Elections or not, democracy is in peril in the supposed democratic West because business interests outweigh and overrule* the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.

---

Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.

---

Though the level of power can overlap, monarchs and dictators are not technically the same thing and are generally not compared.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.

---

Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.

---

Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.

---

Though the level of power can overlap, monarchs and dictators are not technically the same thing and are generally not compared.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Usually, a long reigning monarch inherits the throne when their predecessor dies and preparations have been made for the succession. A dictator has, usually, to first become the leading member of the revolutionary party or army, then lead a successful revolution and only then does the clock start ticking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
None of us would like to live under Louis, Francis or Fidel, but the point is that from a historical perspective, the first two were roughly representative of their era, whereas Castro was a (possibly wannabe totalitarian, certainly harshly repressive) dictator in an era when liberal, pluralist democracy was a rapidly spreading and workable ideal.

In other words, he was a reactionary aberration.

---